Verification of the results of floristic studies in key biotopes

Reduction of biodiversity in the process of forest management and the solution of the issue of species conservation are of particular relevance for the forests of the taiga zone, where clear-cutting is carried out over large areas. One of the possible ways to conserve species in the process of timber harvesting is the identification of key biotopes – areas with a high representation of floristic diversity, as well as the presence of single plant species in need of protection. The aim of the work was to verify the results of floristic studies conducted in key biotopes with temporary and permanent excess moisture preserved during clear-cutting 4-5 years ago. The Turing coefficient and the estimated indicator of the potential number of plants were used as tools for verifying the results of floristic studies, the determination of which is based on the calculation of the actual number of plant species found during the field survey, as well as the number of single and protected species within the boundaries of the sites. Carefully verified results of floristic studies, if sufficient and complete, can serve as a basis for formulating scientifically substantiated conclusions and practical recommendations. During the study of floristic diversity in key biotopes with excessive moisture 22-34 species were recorded, including herbaceous plants, mosses and lichens, among which 1-8 species are singletons, represented by single specimens, and 3 species have a protected status. The calculated Turing coefficients, ranging from 0.73 to 0.97, show that for all key biotopes the completeness of the survey is sufficient for interpreting the corresponding research conclusions. At the same time, the potential number of species growing in the areas may be somewhat higher compared to their actually recorded number. 

1. Astrologova L.E., Gortinsky G.B. Methodical instructions for conducting field practice in botany. Arkhangelsk: ALTI, 1980. 32 p. (In Russ.)

2. Belyakov D.V., Konyushatov O.A., Korchagov S.A., Gribov S.E. Conservation of plant species diversity during forest management in key biotopes of the Vologda Region. IVUZ. Forestry journal, 2024a, no. 2, pp. 189-200. (In Russ.)

3. Belyakov D.V., Korchagov S.A., Konyushatov O.A., Andronova M.M. Assessment of species diversity of the flora of key biotopes in clear-cut areas in the Vologda Region. Izvestia Sankt-Peterburgskoj Lesotehniceskoj Akademii, 2024b, iss. 248, pp. 89-102. (In Russ.)

4. Forest inventory reference book for the north-east of the European part of the Russian Federation: (regulatory materials for the Nenets Autonomous Okrug, Arkhangelsk, Vologda regions and the Komi Republic) / Federal Forestry Agency, Federal Budgetary Institution "Northern Scientific Research Institute of Forestry. Arkhangelsk: Pravda Severa, 2012. 672 p. (In Russ.)

5. Gaston K.J., Blackburn T.M. Pattern and process in macroecology. Malden, MA, USA: Blackwell Science, 2000. 377 p. DOI: 10.1002/9780470999592.

6. IUCN 2001. Red List Categories and Criteria version 3.1. URL: http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/categories-and-criteria/2001categories-criteria (accessed: 22.04.2025).

7. Korchagov S.A., Khamitov R.S., Gribov S.E., Ivanova M.G., Belyakov D.V. Silvicultural and economic assessment of biological diversity objects in the taiga zone. IVUZ. Forestry journal, 2021, no. 6, pp. 110-120. (In Russ.)

8. Leontyev D.V. Floristic analysis in mycology. Kharkov, 2008. 110 p. (In Russ.)

9. The list of bryophytes included to the Red Book of the Murmansk Region. The Red Book of the Murmansk Region. URL: https://portal.kgilc.ru/redbook/?q=Bryophytes (accessed: 22.04.2025). (In Russ.)

10. Megarran E. Biological diversity and its measurement / transl. from English by Matveeva N.V., ed. by Chernov Yu.I. Moscow: Mir, 1992. 161 p. (In Russ.)

11. Melekhov I.S. Forestry: еextbook for students of higher educational institutions. Moscow: MGUL, 1999. 398 p. (In Russ.)

12. Mouillot D., Bellwood D.R., Baraloto Ch., Chave J., Galzin R., HarmelinVivien M., Kulbicki M., Lavergne S., Lavorel S., Mouquet N., Paine C.E.T., Renaud J. Rare Specific Support Vulnerable Functions in High-Diversity Ecosystems. PLoS Biol., 2013, vol. 11, iss. 5, art. no. e1001569. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001569.

13. Orlova N.I. Guide of higher plants of the Vologda region. Vologda: Rus, 1997. 264 p. (In Russ.)

14. Pautov Yu.A., Konyushatov O.A., Yanitskaya T.O. On the practice of preserving biological diversity during logging operations. Sustainable forest management, 2010, no. 1 (23), pp. 22-27. (In Russ.)

15. Peterson A.R., Navarro-Sigüenza A.G., Benitez-Diaz H. The need for continued scientific collecting: a geographic analysis of Mexican bird specimens. Ibis, 1998, vol. 140, iss. 2, pp. 288-294.

16. The Red Book of the Bryansk Region. Bryansk, 2016. 432 p. (In Russ.)

17. The Red Book of the Republic of Karelia. Belgorod: KONSTANTA, 2020. 448 p. (In Russ.)

18. The Red Book of the Volgograd Region. Vol. 2: Plants and fungi / ed. by V.S. Novikov, G. Yu. Klinkova. Volgograd: Volgograd, 2006. 236 p. (In Russ.)

19. The Red Book of the Vologda Region. Vol. 2: Plants and fungi / ed. Konechnaya G.Yu., Suslova T.A. Vologda: Rus, 2004. 360 p. (In Russ.)

20. Red Data Book of European Bryophytes. Trindheim, 1995. 291 p.

21. The Red Data Book of the Ryazan Region. Ryazan: Golos gubernii, 2011. 626 p. (In Russ.)

22. The Red Data Book of the Tomsk Region. Elista: Protsvet, 2023. 580 p. (In Russ.)

23. Reese G.C., Wilson K.R., Flather C.H. Performance of species estimators across assemblage types and survey parameters. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 2014, no. 23, pp. 585-594.

24. Shaikhutdinova A.A. Methods for assessing biodiversity. Methodological guidelines. Orenburg: OSU, 2019. 37 p. (In Russ.)

25. Soberón J., Jimenéz R., Golubov J., Koleff P. Assessing completeness of biodiversity databases at different spatial scales. Ecography, 2007, no, 30, pp. 152160. DOI: 10.1111/j.2006.0906-7590.04627.x.